Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 05-22-2011, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

'True'???

Lets say I am a salesperson trying to sell a product. I hear something catchy about a competitor's product and I repeat that catchy something about my product. Do I know or care if it is 'true'? Do I see if it is false? More that likely I will not care enough to check for falsity. I am not lying, but I am not fully truthful either. My objective is to sell.

Applying this to Paul's case. Paul is selling a product: his religious point of view in the hope of getting followers and churches from which he will profit. Most folks in the religion business are selling something to their benefit. They want money, recognition or something. Those folks that do not profit do not stay in it for long. I assume that the Church at Jerusalem had a reputation and Paul used that reputation and parts of that church's theology to further his ministry. So in that case, Paul is teaching something he does not know if it is true, but it furthers his purpose.

Why do folks assume that Paul was a dedicated, self sacrificing, zealot and not just a traveling preacher who figured that the religious business was better than tent making? I am not sure if that helps or hurts the mythic position.

Take a look at:

1 Cor 9 6Are we the only ones who have to support ourselves by working at another job? 7Do soldiers pay their own salaries? Don't people who raise grapes eat some of what they grow? Don't shepherds get milk from their own goats? 8-9I am not saying this on my own authority. The Law of Moses tells us not to muzzle an ox when it is grinding grain. But was God concerned only about an ox? 10No, he wasn't! He was talking about us. This was written in the Scriptures so that all who plow and all who grind the grain will look forward to sharing in the harvest. 11When we told the message to you, it was like planting spiritual seed. So we have the right to accept material things as our harvest from you. 12If others have the right to do this, we have an even greater right. But we haven't used this right of ours. We are willing to put up with anything to keep from causing trouble for the message about Christ.

1 Timothy 5:

17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”[b]

1 Timothy is probably not by Paul.

1 Corinthians is not claiming that Paul was paid by his converts, but that his converts should be grateful to Paul for his not accepting renumeration from them.

Andrew Criddle

I agree with you on 1 Timothy.

On the second issue, I've heard one too many requests for love offerings in church to believe that Paul was not obliquely asking for donations. He builds up a huge case about how ministers should be paid and says don't bother paying us because we love giving you the message and we don't want to cause trouble.

Let me make a word picture of how this would happen in a Southern church. A revival has been going on and lots of good preaching given. On the final sermon the preacher would get up and says I have worked hard and deserve my pay. Other workers get paid but I have heard some complaining about how much I am getting paid. I don't want to cause any conflicts in the church so I will go without pay. After that someone from the church will stand up and shout 'no preacher we will take up a love offering for you' and an offering plate will be passed around and the outrage will insure the preacher gets his pay too.

jgoodguy · 05-22-2011, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Since the Nicene Creed (325 AD) makes no reference to scripture, I find it hard to believe that the proto-orthodox church believed in the Gospels as the literal truth before that time.

This is what Bart Ehrman had to say about scripture when I e-mailed him about why this is so.

Quote:

I think it seems odd only in a culture like ours, where the Bible is SO important to Christianity. For the ancients it was not an object of veneration in the same way. The creeds were based on the Bible to some extent, as everyone knew; but the Bible itself was not an object of faith (and the creeds are stating the objects of faith). That’s why modern Christians who “believe in the Bible” are so idiosyncratic, historically.

What Ehrman seems to be saying is not so much that the ancient Christians disbelieved in the Bible or believed in the Bible metaphorically or whatever, but that the scriptures themselves were not an object of devotion. The relevancy was in the doctrines as reflected in the scriptures. Since the Nicene creed is a set of doctrines that can only emerge from a developing attempt to make sense of the doctrines of the Christian scriptures, it seems most plausible that the pre-Nicene Christians most certainly did literally believe what was written in their scriptures, even if the Nicene Creed does not quote or cite the passages specifically. Bible chapter and verse numbers (i.e. John 3:16) didn't even exist until the Middle Ages, so it isn't strongly expected that the Nicene Creed would make direct reference to scripture, but doctrines such as, "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead," are really things we would expect them to believe only if they believed in their Christian scriptures literally.

In addition, 90% or more of the population could not read and only know of Christianity what was told to them.

Toto · 05-22-2011, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Since the Nicene Creed (325 AD) makes no reference to scripture, I find it hard to believe that the proto-orthodox church believed in the Gospels as the literal truth before that time.

This is what Bart Ehrman had to say about scripture when I e-mailed him about why this is so.

What Ehrman seems to be saying is not so much that the ancient Christians disbelieved in the Bible or believed in the Bible metaphorically or whatever, but that the scriptures themselves were not an object of devotion. The relevancy was in the doctrines as reflected in the scriptures. Since the Nicene creed is a set of doctrines that can only emerge from a developing attempt to make sense of the doctrines of the Christian scriptures,

Stop there. Didn't you just contradict yourself in 3 sentences?

Christianity as a social organization existed apart from its doctrines, and the doctrines existed apart from the scriptures. The church had been in existence for a generation or two before it started to put together a canon.

Early Christians did not start with the scriptures and develop doctrine. That was what later Christians did, in particular Martin Luther.

Quote:

it seems most plausible that the pre-Nicene Christians most certainly did literally believe what was written in their scriptures, even if the Nicene Creed does not quote or cite the passages specifically. Bible chapter and verse numbers (i.e. John 3:16) didn't even exist until the Middle Ages, so it isn't strongly expected that the Nicene Creed would make direct reference to scripture, but doctrines such as, "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead," are really things we would expect them to believe only if they believed in their Christian scriptures literally.

You don't need chapters and verses to quote scripture. The rest is also a non sequitur.

ApostateAbe · 05-22-2011, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

What Ehrman seems to be saying is not so much that the ancient Christians disbelieved in the Bible or believed in the Bible metaphorically or whatever, but that the scriptures themselves were not an object of devotion. The relevancy was in the doctrines as reflected in the scriptures. Since the Nicene creed is a set of doctrines that can only emerge from a developing attempt to make sense of the doctrines of the Christian scriptures,

Stop there. Didn't you just contradict yourself in 3 sentences?

Christianity as a social organization existed apart from its doctrines, and the doctrines existed apart from the scriptures. The church had been in existence for a generation or two before it started to put together a canon.

Early Christians did not start with the scriptures and develop doctrine. That was what later Christians did, in particular Martin Luther.

OK, I have no disagreement with that. I don't know exactly what you thought I meant, but I see no need to debate it.

aa5874 · 05-23-2011, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

1 Timothy is probably not by Paul.

1 Corinthians is not claiming that Paul was paid by his converts, but that his converts should be grateful to Paul for his not accepting renumeration from them.

Andrew Criddle

Actually it is MORE likely that "late Paul" was the original and "early Paul" was FAKE.

It is NO secret that the Church INVENTED their own EARLY HISTORY of the Church.

Acts of the Apostles and ALL the Pauline writings are part of the FRAUD called the "History of the Church".

The Acts of the Apostles and "EARLY PAUL" are unaccounted for in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Vorkosigan · 05-25-2011, 04:47 PM

Don, isn't literalism a 19th century American invention? Didn't it arise in response to the Enlightenment?

Vorkosigan

dog-on · 05-26-2011, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Don, isn't literalism a 19th century American invention? Didn't it arise in response to the Enlightenment?

Vorkosigan

That is my understanding.

GakuseiDon · 05-26-2011, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Don, isn't literalism a 19th century American invention? Didn't it arise in response to the Enlightenment?

Vorkosigan

As a fundamentalist doctrine and as a reaction to the Dutch radicals, yes, that's right. That's why I was surprised at Toto's comment. I don't doubt though that there were those who thought that the Bible should be taken literally, but I was wondering if how early that was. It doesn't appear to be dominant in early Christianity.

Besides Origen, we find Eusebius of Caesarea writing in the Fourth Century CE:

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

dog-on · 05-26-2011, 09:03 AM

Don, for a thousand years, the bible, each and every letter of it, was taken exactly as the Catholic Church said it should be taken.

Toto · 05-26-2011, 09:07 AM

Inerrancy was post-Enlightenment, especially in regard to the Hebrew Scriptures. But what was the Nicene creed, if not at attempt to enforce a literal view of at least certain facts from the gospels?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-25-2011, 04:47 PM	#36
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Don, isn't literalism a 19th century American invention? Didn't it arise in response to the Enlightenment? Vorkosigan

05-26-2011, 09:03 AM	#39
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Don, for a thousand years, the bible, each and every letter of it, was taken exactly as the Catholic Church said it should be taken.

05-26-2011, 09:07 AM	#40
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Inerrancy was post-Enlightenment, especially in regard to the Hebrew Scriptures. But what was the Nicene creed, if not at attempt to enforce a literal view of at least certain facts from the gospels?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.